HC admits LPA of corp chiefs

A division bench of Justice C.K. Thakkar and Justice A.L. Dave in an interim order rejected the appeal of the chairmen, restraining the state government from making appointments. However, the court further held that the appointments would be subject to final judgment of the letters patent appeal filed by the chairmen of boards and corporations.

The court further observed that the state government, while issuing appointment orders, should mention that the appointments were subject to final verdict of the high court. The court further refused to issue certificate to approach the Supreme Court, under article 132 and 134-A of the Constitution of India.

Prashant Desai, appearing on behalf of the state government, submitted that the petitioners were dignitaries appointed to high public offices, and it is consistent practice and convention that when they are to be replaced by other persons, the incumbent is not removed from the office, but another person is appointed in place of the previous incumbent.

He further submitted that even when the petitioners were appointed as chairmen of the respective corporations, their initial appointments orders were on the aforesaid lines. He further submitted that their predecessors in the office were also not ordered to be removed from the respective offices, but the petitioners were appointed in place of the previous incumbent.He contended that the power of the government to appoint chairmen and directors of the boards and coporations included the power to remove the incumbents.

All the petitioners were appointed in the respective office on purely political considerations for smooth implementations of the policies of the party in power

.In all 16 LPAs were filed among which included ones by Natwarlal Ramdas Patel Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, Dattaji Chirandas Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, and Jorubha Chauhan of Gujarat State Fertilizers Corporation among others.

Earlier, the high court had in April rejected the petition challenging the orders passed by the state government, replacing the chairmen of 12 statutory boards and corporations and 13 government companies. The high court in April further had held that if the petitioners were continued as chairmen they may be at loggerheads with the government, resulting in dispute between the government and the boards and therefore the court had ruled that there cannot be effective and smooth implementation of policies and programmes. The petitioners has then contended that the term of their offices was fixed for either two or three years.